Charges of ABC bias

The ABC programs are about to be put under close scrutiny to meet stringent impartiality standards to fight any bias on the network.

Do you welcome the measures to correct left-wing bias or are you wary of how the guidelines will be used?

This forum is now closed; here's what you said.

Posted
by SMH OnlineOctober 16, 2006 9:50 AM

LATEST COMMENTS

Bias?

What bias? You got to be kidding.

Since when ABC was operated by self-conceived ROBOTS?

Posted by: Henry H on October 16, 2006 10:13 AM

I perceive this proposal as a politically motivated attack on ABC's currently unbiased policies and political independence.

Posted by: P F Massey on October 16, 2006 10:13 AM

Left-wing bias? If I want to really know what's going on politically I watch Channel 9 now, as their political commentators haven't been so neutered that they can still be critical of the government. ABC reporters can't.

Posted by: Sarah on October 16, 2006 10:14 AM

I'm all for it! What we need in this country is more government control over the media. And censorship. And conscription! None of this namby-pamby pinko liberal nonsense the ABC and its fellow travellers in the Fairfax press keep dishing out!

Posted by: vealmince on October 16, 2006 10:16 AM

Since when has challenging the policies and views of politicians been bias?

Posted by: Simon on October 16, 2006 10:18 AM

Shocked by the governments attack on the ABC's independence.

Posted by: j. ramsey on October 16, 2006 10:20 AM

Come on - we all know what this is about. If the ABC say anything that could be construed as anti - government then the old 'bias' argument is rolled out. This time, the government has stacked the ABC Board with its lackeys to pull them into line

If ther ABC was always issuing pro-government content, would we be still talking about bias? Perhaps protests from the Labor Party, but I doubt any of Howard's cohorts would be making any noise

Posted by: Flynn on October 16, 2006 10:22 AM

What, like the bias in this loaded question?

Posted by: Mel Keenan on October 16, 2006 10:27 AM

After an expensive and lengthy investigation into so called ABC bias revealed abosulutely nothing - I do not support one more cent of tax payers money being used to further the views of Mr Howard and his supporters.

Leave aunty alone!

Posted by: Erin B on October 16, 2006 10:27 AM

Is the ABC biassed? Really? I thought that they treated all political parties the same, in that they criticise all of them of being "too right-wing" (even the Democrats & Greens!). Come on, you all know that it's true.

Posted by: Greg Weilo on October 16, 2006 10:28 AM

I love this comment "The changes will open the ABC to far greater pressure from lobby groups wanting to complain about its coverage of contentious scientific and social issues such as global warming, children's vaccinations and sexual mores." I thought science was always based on facts and results. No longer. Next we'll have to put creationism warnings up when discussing evolution.

Posted by: Nat on October 16, 2006 10:33 AM

As any and every left-winger will tell you, the ABC isn't biassed. Who could not believe such impartial people?

Posted by: Jenny on October 16, 2006 10:34 AM

Howard's bogans have commercial free to air TV, radio shock jocks and cable FauxNews for their own and their Prime Minister's preferred version of the world.

Leave the ABC and SBS alone as much-needed antidotes to their fantasylands.

A rather telling juxtaposition too in the SMH today with a report of the gagging of the ABC alongside a report of a Vietnamese family being harassed by brainless beach bullies at Maroubra.

This is the Australia this government wants.

Posted by: sorcerer on October 16, 2006 10:36 AM

You, SMH, say "Do you welcome the measures to correct left-wing bias", what left-wing bias? Have you not forgotten that the Board of the ABC is now being stacked with "right-wing biased" board members?

Posted by: Martin on October 16, 2006 10:38 AM

Its too depressing to think about. Little Jonny Jackboot will be going all out to 'get us', just in case he gets dumped. He's going for revenge after the drubbing he got last time he was booted out. I guess '1984 communications is more advanced than 17th century IR. I saw Channel 9 angling to ban access to 'youTube'.

Posted by: Depressed on October 16, 2006 10:42 AM

I suspect that the only way that John Howard and his conservative mates would not see the ABC as unbiased would be with Alan Jones presenting the 7:30 report and Andrew Bolt hosting Lateline assisted by Stan.

Posted by: John on October 16, 2006 10:45 AM

abc biased... he he...

the only reason they look
left wing is that they don't
word for word repeat the government line...
or run serious news stories like how a
little granny in wagga lost $50 because of her
evil son...

I am serious, how many times have
they let John Howard get away with
the line 'I don't agree with that'
or 'I don't think so' or
'Well that's a matter of opinion' ....

A bbc journalist would have jumped on them...

John Major and Ronald Regan would look like a leftie in this country... ')

Posted by: p on October 16, 2006 10:48 AM

Sell the ABC and the bias problem will no longer be ours. And we will save one BILLION dollars per year!

The ABC has sucked for years and nothing except getting rid of it will solve the problem.

Posted by: Mark M on October 16, 2006 10:50 AM

It seems to me that very right-winger I know hates the ABC, while every left-winger loves it. I think that it's fairly clear who has the most to lose if the ABC does become more impartial.

Posted by: John on October 16, 2006 10:51 AM

It's a matter of balance. Can you imagine how our media will look once Fairfax is "acquired", the ABC becomes a shadow-of-a-shadow of its former self and all that's left is the Daily Terrorgraph and 2UE delivering poison across the airwaves?

Posted by: less-than-or-equal on October 16, 2006 10:55 AM

Global warming, the theory of Evolution or the sphericity of the earth are not "contentious" among scientists. It seems that "bias" in the right-wing vocabulary is a synonym with "factual." Sure, a number of commentators on the ABC (and elsewhere) were negative about our involvement in the Iraq war. Were they "biased"? Were the correct? Until now Australians could rest assured that their government-owned media were not government-controlled media. Indeed the ABC was willing to criticise governments of both political complexions when the commercial media was disinclined to. Do we really want government media as "unbiased" as that of any tin-pot dictatorship?

Posted by: Simon on October 16, 2006 10:57 AM

The question, "Do you welcome the measures to correct left-wing bias?" seems to anticipate its answer. It frames the argument too narrowly.

By making an issue out of ABC bias, the larger, more important and far more insidious fact of overall right wing bias in the total media environment is completely obliterated.

The thing is, commercial media in Australia are, by their comercial nature, right wing organs. But one hears no call from any quarter to correct the inherent right wing bias of commercial media, to which there is no effective left wing counterweight.

Indeed, even if the ABC were left wing biased, it could never hope to compete with the massive right wing outpourings of Australian commercial media.

Calls from arch conservatives like Gerard Henderson for the moderation of possible ABC bias smack of vested interests. He is a right winger seeking to silence left leaning opposition.

For Henderson and his ilk, the elegance of the "unbias the ABC" solution is that it gets the (right wing Howard) government to do what the right wing outside of the government cannot: silence the opposition.

Frankly, I am sick of Australia's right wing commercial media telling me, for example, what a laudable goal we pursue in Iraq.

As usual, it will ultimately be the left wing that picks up the pieces when we finally disengage from such hideous right wing debacles.

Posted by: Mark Hislop on October 16, 2006 10:59 AM

I've been watching abc for many years and it's not about being left or right but the integrity of journalistic news programmes. They can set up as many bias watchdogs as they want but frankly it will be a total waste of money,,,facts are facts.

Posted by: John on October 16, 2006 10:59 AM

Fears of a bland program (or series) are more likely to be realised when it becomes a devotional work harping on a single point of view (whether right, left or "centrist"), than if attempts are made to invite contributions from capable evangelists for various points of view. It's great that commonsense prevailed over The Chaser and opinion columnist programs, and a good balance seems to have been struck in the goal of supplying a cross-section of views over time rather than in a single program. Suppression of my pet viewpoint is less likely when a highly visible process of public complaint is established, so let's give it a go, I say.

Posted by: Francis on October 16, 2006 11:01 AM

People too often seem to mistake "rational" for "left-wing".

Posted by: Will S on October 16, 2006 11:03 AM

Just how conservative does the Howard Government require Australia to be before it is okay. As conservative and repressive as Stalinist Russia?

But then a conservative and neutral ABC with retarded intellectual insight, lack of progressive innovation and real-world involvement, as is the true blue standard of John Howard and his smothering, will of course be much riper for selling off.

Posted by: andrew on October 16, 2006 11:04 AM

The Libs and Nats will be wetting their pants at high noon today with joy that they've managed to shaft the Labor-leaning lefties in the media once again. Think of the irony of Howard and his mates using political correctness to drive the wedge...

Posted by: Frank on October 16, 2006 11:04 AM

Let me get this straight, they are going to balance out this so called bias, with more opinion. Not the facts, but the opinion of somebody who 'they' think will give a balanced opinion. More spin BS. So how do they pick the people who have a balanced opinion? Why don't Howard govt. like them sticking to the facts? I'm afraid that this is it for me. I am neither left or right but I have had enough of Howards govt.

Posted by: AJ on October 16, 2006 11:05 AM

Investigating and questioning government policy is not left-winged - it's good investigative journalist, essential in a free and open democracy. The very people who listen to government brown-nosers like Alan Jones want to shut down other voices. If it weren't for the ABC, we wouldn't know about Joh's corrupt government, the Children Overboard lies to name just a few uncovered scandals. But I suppose that's exactly the point. No government wants too close scrutiny. But apparently even a number of Australian citizens don't want their government questioned. Astounding.

Posted by: debbyo on October 16, 2006 11:07 AM

What bias?

Every time these hysterical claims are made by the rabid right, there is an
taxpayer-funded investigation to search for reds under beds in the ABC.

And every time the ABC gets a clean bill of health.

Shrill claims of bias are nothing more than a Liberal party ideological obsession that is
over three decades too long.

The irony: to combat this left wing bias, we will have a Pravda-style
committee that will check all content to make sure it tows the party line.

And its all the direct result of a blatant stack of the ABC board - Government
appointed 'independent' board directors with no programming experience, only
ideological agendas to pursue.

Telstra board directors - beware.

Posted by: Tony on October 16, 2006 11:07 AM

It must be the ultimate irony to have an address on the unbiasing of the ABC given at the Sydney Institute. Gerard Henderson and friends must be wetting themselves in anticipation.

Posted by: bok on October 16, 2006 11:13 AM

I always remember Rod Quantock on Good News Week saying, in response to a news story about the ABC being biased and left-wing, that the ABC couldn't balance out the right-wing bias of the commercial networks if it was run by Marx and Lenin.

Posted by: Nat on October 16, 2006 11:15 AM

The only people who could say the ABC is not biased are the ones with parallel political views. What, biased, moi? Any thinking person even of the left persuasion (not necessarily an oxymoron), can clearly see the bias that self perpetuates right across the programming.

The cure is to commercialise the ABC now. A whiff of commercial reality would be the greatest way to introduce balance into this notorious institution.

Posted by: Barb Dwyer on October 16, 2006 11:16 AM

The ABC is perfectly okay as it is. No doubt the biased Board would all like to be given their own air time to spout extreme right wing opinions. Imagine Janet Albrechsten as a presenter!

Posted by: Freedom on October 16, 2006 11:16 AM

Simon, you and I know that acceptance of factual scientific and historical information should be a given, but as part of their vote-capturing agenda the right purveys the politics of emotion and superstition disguised as "lack of bias". It does not hesitate to use fear and ignorance as its stalking horse.

If you want a vision of the media future as seen by this government, take a look at the boilerplate content of the tabloids coupled with that of their companion womens magazines - the partnership of the politics of voyeurism, prejudice and saccharin sentimentality coupled with populist frenzy.

Print media however is dying. Perhaps then our one chance of tipping the balance lies with the Internet and its increasing capacity to host a variety of media from non-traditional sources. Consideration of that option may be still optimistic since it presupposes the ability of people to critically analyse content, a skill which has probably eluded the average Terror or Hun reader.

Posted by: sorcerer on October 16, 2006 11:17 AM

It is a shame that there is not the same focus on "bias" journalism in the News Limited publications.

The ABC already has impartiality guidelines by way of journalistic integrity.

The only reason why there is any appearance of "bias" in the ABC is that News Limited and PBL are so far to the right of the spectrum that any journalism that maintains integrity and impartiality appears to be run by the "looney left".

Are the same "impartiality guidelines" going to be applied to the commercial media? Of course not!

Unfortunately the guidelines will be an albatross around the neck of the ABC. The right will use the guidelines to pick up on every occasional minutely contentious point that they do not agree with and demand investigations of all journalists and producers until the ABC grinds to a halt.

They already did this with commission set up to investigate the "biased" reporting that the ABC did prior to the War on Iraq. Remind me again how many WMD's were found and whether a bit more proper impartial journalism by the commercial media looking at the case for war may have been warranted....

Posted by: Andrew G on October 16, 2006 11:18 AM

I agree with all balanced analysis of the ABC...
interestingly much of the comments start with the assumption that there is no bias in the ABC. if that is true then well and good but the fact that many people ( rightly or wrongly) percieve one is enough to allow a balanced, transparant and accountable evaluation by professionals... only those with a bias should be worried by such an evaluation...

The last evaluation did find some bias and my own personal analysis ( as a Post-Graduate trained media analyst and communicator) has seen some significant imbalance in telling both sides of some stories.

Particularly where showing equal time to either side.

My own perception seems to be in some current affairs that the ABC seems to be saying ... in effect
" the commercial channels are only showing this side so we should only show the other!"

When what they SHOULD be doing is showing BOTH!

cheers

Posted by: arkey on October 16, 2006 11:20 AM

Well a good example of real "bias" is the SMH asserting that it is a proven (see your question). That the ABC is accused by some, and taken as proven by others, of bias because it dares to speak the truth or ask the hard questions, has all the hallmarks of the beginning of totalitarianism. Criticism of Howard backed up by facts is bias? I hear the boots stomping, not any bias.

Posted by: blind freddie on October 16, 2006 11:21 AM

The ABC doesnt offer any opposing view when it airs BBC programs and news . Since the BBC has been found guilty of bias (whereupon the lefties tried to shoot the messenger) we can reasonably argue it does offer a one sided coverage

Why should the taxpayer pay for the propagation of discredited ideologies ?

Posted by: Karl Marx on October 16, 2006 11:21 AM

Yet another slash in the death of a thousand cuts this regime is imposing on the ABC. We all know that in Liberal speak, "bias" is defined as any view that doesn't conincide with the Government's.

Posted by: marea on October 16, 2006 11:22 AM

Bias? Well, Gerard Henderson would know.

The Howard Government is becoming increasingly desperate that they are going to lose the next election. They have given the commercial media a big boon in the form of the relaxed media laws, at NO benefit to us. Now they are trying to get the ABC in the bag, what next? Stop SBS World News from reporting news from Iraq that makes them look bad?

I just cannot believe that the would even think to pointing the anti-bias stick at the Glass House and The Chaser. Anyone with half a brain knows that they take the piss out of anyone, regardless of political party. Unless of course, this is really about just stopping left-wing bias, rather than any sort of bias.

Posted by: brad on October 16, 2006 11:23 AM

When Sen Alston retired at the 1994 elections, he was still investigating Anti-American 'bias' in ABCs coverage of the lead up to the Iraq war.

The ABC was the only media outlet to get it at least half-right, yet the government had no problems with the bias of the commercial media which was completely wrong.

This is censorship.

Posted by: Ross Devine on October 16, 2006 11:26 AM

The measures don't go far enough. We should be looking at the North Korean media as a benchmark for our scrutiny of the ABC

Posted by: Dictator on October 16, 2006 11:33 AM

As much as I enjoy ABC radio I get bored of the likes of Trioli and Glover workshopping the problems of the federal ALP. Where are they on state Liberals?!

Posted by: Adam on October 16, 2006 11:38 AM

I do hate the ABC's bias, but I hate the governments will to be a control-freak even more.

Posted by: Vishy on October 16, 2006 11:39 AM

Both sides of politics scream bias when it suits. Who else have we got apart from the ABC."to keep the bastards honest"
As long as the mealy mouth,lying rodent can demand the same standards from the commercials then hands off little man of an insignificant mind. We are fast heading down the 1984 model of total control.

Posted by: Jan Dekker on October 16, 2006 11:40 AM

Bias - you've got to be kidding.

Try this - watch the evening news on two of the commercial stations, and then the ABC. You'll soon see who is biased from how the commercials pick their stories, and the order in which they put them in their bulletins.

The ABC already has protocols for assuring balanced reporting. For goodness sake resource them properly and leave them alone to get on with it.

Posted by: mysore on October 16, 2006 11:42 AM

The new "ombudsman-style manager will handle public complaints against the ABC" will have his hands full once all the right wing commercially funded and run "public groups" start trawling through the minute detail in the transcripts of every program that the ABC posts on their website and submitting long lists of complaints.

Unfortunately this new beaurocracy that Howard's appointees to the ABC board have added will simply sap the already stretched resources of the ABC.

The government still has not addressed the findings of the independent KPMG report stating that the ABC needs an additional $73.6m of additional capital funding as a BARE MINIMUM (only $45m provided in the 2006 budget).

When will the additional operational funding to deal with this Howard imposed beaurocracy be forthcoming?

Posted by: Andrew G on October 16, 2006 11:43 AM

I find this typical of the Howard Governmentï¿½s arrogance! He's so right wing he's off the television screen and any other view than his, isn't welcome. What a bloody waste of time, money and effort to bugger up such a venerable, long-serving and valuable media institution!

Posted by: Reg Barlow on October 16, 2006 11:48 AM

I think a novel experiment is needed to be sure we can distinguish between 'being left' and 'being on the government's back'.

Say a decade of actually having a decidedly left with administration in Government. Of course to make it comparable with the current situation, 2UE and the telegraph would need to be remoulded as left wing mouthpieces too, leaving the ABC to cover the remaining spectrum of views.

Posted by: J Macris on October 16, 2006 11:49 AM

Finally, Howard's thought police win out.

The "Public" broadcaster becomes the "Government" broadcaster.

All Hail Dictator John.

Posted by: Michael on October 16, 2006 11:51 AM

What is needed here is an investigation by the ABC into whether or not it is unbaised.

I think moreoover, the proper people to undertake this investigation would be The Chaser and / or Andrew Denton.

After which case the score would be

ABC 1, Howard's Govt. 0.

Posted by: Matthew on October 16, 2006 11:54 AM

Most mass media journalists are on the left side of the political spectrum. Their audiences understand this bias and build it into what they read, hear and see. Media that get too far to the left (or right)see their ratings, circulations, etc. drop. No need for bias police. Let the market decide.

A right-board can't control peurile innuendo and bias that is so evident.

Sure they hassle all pollies, but from the left, so even PK and BH were criticised for being too right.

And commercial stations can be as biased as they like - start your own if you disagree, smarty-dumb pants...

As ABC is paid for by taxpayers, it should be 100% neutral and it clearly is not.

I want to listen radio that is ad free, govt run and non-biased, as I pay tax for it to be my right.

Posted by: marcusbondi on October 16, 2006 11:58 AM

Maybe Fairfax should adopt such standards and stop trying to pass off opinion as news.

Posted by: Alan Jones on October 16, 2006 11:59 AM

ABC biased AND left wing? As opposed to biased AND right wing, like Gerard Henderson? Of course, that's acceptable because Henderson is a liberal cronie and parrot - but that's not bias, that's independent journalism, John Howard style.

So, let's count it all down and see what kind of a picture emerges.

The government wants to rewrite the national history curriculum to exclude the idea (shock, horror, amazement!) that history may be written from the perspective of those with power and should therefore be subject to critical evaluation and debate.

(Howard appoints Keith Windschuttle to the ABC board - a revisionist nut case and wedger par excellence - to make his point)

The government then scraps the whole notion of media diversity by allowing concentration of ownership, and therefore, commercial media bias in Australia.

Lastly, it has compeletely muzzled CSIRO, particularly with regard to any statements that might confirm the peer reviewed scientific FACTS of global warming.

So Howard thinks history is based on 'facts' and science is 'fiction' and that the ABC is biased but Murdoch press outlets are not.

And now the government wants to spend money putting the boot in to anything that resembles independent journalism - or even journalism for that matter. The government control and gagging of rational debate is well advanced in this country. Certainly our bureacrats can no longer give 'frank and fearless' advise - or expect it to be headed by politicians.

The ABC may be our only (diminishing) source of the kinds of 'frank and fearless' facts that should have kept us out of Iraq and in the Kyoto protocol.

Posted by: Emma on October 16, 2006 12:04 PM

Left wing bias in the ABC? I suppose things in Australia are looking more like the 50's nowadays. What with the drought, minerals boom and immigration issues. Then there's the north Korean atomic test and China's economic dominance too! Can't be too careful eh? Best to err on the side of caution and preempt the Reds sneaking in through the studio door. Hey, has anyone seen The Bridges of Toko Ri? Great stuff. So unlike the sort of left wing propaganda that is rife in Australian TV. Commercialise the ABC and bring it to the same standard as real TV with plenty of ads and proper content! Hey, remember that old Spike Milligan song "I'm walking backwards for Christmas"? He must have been thinking of this country when he wrote it.

Posted by: Another looney leftista on October 16, 2006 12:07 PM

The current ABC news and current affairs guidelines are consistently ignored, so until there is professional and independent checking, all these additional guidelines mandating fairness and balance will not make any difference.

The problem is not a left-bias, or even a pro-Labor bias, but a pro-victim mentality that leads ABC (and SBS) staff to support the weak over the powerful in any current issue. This may or may not be wrong, but let's not pretend it is either fair or balanced.

It's stating the bleeding obvious to say ABC reporters and producers give special coverage and support to all issues that favour the have-nots over the haves, the powerless over the powerful, the losers over the winners, the low-paid over the well-paid, and the disenfranchised (with the possible exception of the Shiites in Iraq because the poor blighters have George W. Bush as a saviour) over the franchised.

They want everyone to be equal and all things to be fair. It is classic Tall Poppy syndrome.

Thus the publicly-funded ABC will never give fair and balanced voice to the point of view of the employer over employee, government over opposition, farmer over wilderness warrior, logger over greenie, big business over small (despite most big business being owned by superfunds which are owned by workers), the rich over the poor, global climate optimist over global warming pessimist, conqueror colonist over conquered indigenous, the frugal over the spendthrift, or Christianity over minor religions like Buddhism or New Ageism.

McDonald’s, Coca-cola, indeed America itself, will always be on the receiving end of ABC bile purely because of their size and their success. Accordingly to this mentality the obese aren’t obese because they eat too much of the wrong foods and don’t’ exercise enough, it seems they are obese because they are victims of cruel and manipulative advertising by powerful multi-national companies. Fine. That’s one point of view. But so long as you get funds from the taxpayer, let’s not pretend it’s the only truth or that others, even the powerful, aren’t entitled to have their opinion heard.

The only real change to the ABC will come when it is subjected to a regular and independent audit.

Posted by: clump on October 16, 2006 12:13 PM

The two great bastions in my life are the ABC and the Fairfax press. I fear for both of them!!! Where is Paul Keating when I need him?

Posted by: brian barton on October 16, 2006 12:13 PM

"A Current Affair" and "Today Tonight" should be the absolute rolemodels in terms of unbiased reporting. Take for instance the "Great Weight Debate" - all diets have been given an equal opportunity in this journalistic masterpiece!

On a side note, apparently Naomi Robsen and the Today Tonight team were quite flattered when they were told that they required journalist visas to visit Indonesia...

Posted by: Andrew G on October 16, 2006 12:13 PM

The ABC needs to have the cleaner put through it and it is indeed, very biased.
Editorial control is in play and needs to be eased.

Posted by: David on October 16, 2006 12:15 PM

ABC doing a fine job of keeping howard and his clowns honest.If you want bias tune into news corp.
And those flips at ch 9 are nothing
but tabloid news.Brian Henderson would refuse to read the crap that comes from this network now.

Posted by: Greg on October 16, 2006 12:15 PM

Without a doubt, ABC news and current affairs broadcasters are adept when it comes to rigorous political analysis. It is questionable, however, whether these broadcasters scrutinise Labor policy with the same rigorous intensity that seems to be reserved for the Coalition.
Furthermore, has anyone stopped to consider how the ABC can present political issues dispassionately, when one of its highest profile current affairs presenters happens to be a former press secretary to Gough Whitlam!!!

Posted by: cyberbloke on October 16, 2006 12:19 PM

In the last 20 odds years, I have only watched the ABC and SBS for the unbiased news and current affairs. The ABC board members that John Howard has stacked up from the pool of his cronies must have rocks in one side of their heads that preventing them from seeing the opposite point of view.

Posted by: PRB on October 16, 2006 12:24 PM

Do people watch the ABC?

Posted by: NathanC on October 16, 2006 12:27 PM

I was going voice my opinion the majority of contributions seems to have said it all.

Posted by: cj on October 16, 2006 12:31 PM

There is a RIGHT wing bias at our aunties. There is very little attemp at following any left wing threads of investigive journalism or questioning. If you watch lateline you will find that Little Lord Downer is the most common interviewee. Is there something going on there Mr Tony Jones? It seems the pompous fool is on every second night blowing his little Imperialistic trumpet. I have noticed a definite bias toward Israel also in reporting of any news coming from that area of struggle. So as far as I can see it is all very Red White and Blue coming out of that corner. I cannot watch the current affairs shows any more. Well sometimes 4 corners. Most disappointing. Hands off Aunty and repeal all changes made over the last 10 years.

Posted by: Richman on October 16, 2006 12:33 PM

Can we have the same standards applied to all media? Perhaps we could have the same standards applied to the government's own advertising on issues? I would love to see the next tax-payer funded advert for how well the government is looking after us give the same air time to those people that think its a self-serving moral vacuum.

Posted by: Scott McWhirter on October 16, 2006 12:36 PM

The bias is everywhere else! Today's Health Report, indicating that women, specifically lower-income women, are the ones most suffering from arthritis. Norman Swan you naughty boy, this can no longer be said - it pertains to a world view that does not pass the bias test. Gerard Henderson should be ashamed to support this.

Posted by: Kevin Taylor on October 16, 2006 12:40 PM

JJJ is as hard left as Alan Jones is to the Right. They assume their audience consists entirely of are hippy uni students.

Posted by: Dr DK on October 16, 2006 12:41 PM

What? Opposed to the Murdoch owned stations and their 'unbias approach'?

What a crock of absolute BS.

Can we teach our kids the phrases "Police State" and "Mind control"?

Posted by: Tricia Mawson on October 16, 2006 12:43 PM

As a supporter of the ABC I think this is an excellent move. In watching that the ABC does not become too biased to any one political leaning, this should ensure that Howard's right-wing board appointments should not be able to influence the ABC to the right too much. Being that past investigations into left-wing bias have come up with nothing, the left have nothing to fear.

Unless of course this is a facile and poorly-disguised attempt to influence the ABC towards the particular bias that the Howard Government is trying to achieve? Surely not!

Posted by: Brad on October 16, 2006 12:44 PM

Lets get rid of the right wing bias onn the ABC. I'm sick of it!

Posted by: mark on October 16, 2006 12:44 PM

I think Media watch does enough they attack more ABC shows than any other network.

Who put this issue into the spotlight surely not the governement who is centralising media ownership, but if so ah why not as long as all channels have the same guidelines to follow.

If we can be sure of ethical and factual reporting on all channels do it, but I hardy see how such a thing could be possible.

I can never forget a interview about post invasion iraq on FOX, some self validating expert is saying the less supportive nations need to do more in Iraq as they are not pulling their share of the weight and this is hurting americas recon efforts.

So who where these less supportive nations

Russia
France
Germany

Dam less supportive nations, One would think they did not even want the war in the first place,

If something is done to stop deliberate mistruths or half truths being promoted for political agenda thats a wonderful idea, but why would the ABC be the starting block not the ending post, surely Public companies have more to gain from selective reporting than a government run TV station who occasionaly bites the hand that feeds it.

who watches chaser,

What the pokie story count of PBL Vs no PBL channels its like 1 story Vs 22 or something.

More restrictions on the ones with a profit motive for putting biases on stories, or is that just silly??????

Posted by: HIM on October 16, 2006 12:48 PM

Any management or policy response to perceived bias is welcome. Not because the staff (on camera or on air) are purposely running an ideological line, but for the ability of a major cultural institution and icon to say: we think we should look at ourselves more critically. If there is substantive bias with the ABC it is "middle to upper middle class" bias for which this son of a fitter and turner turned uni teacher is proud to defend!

Posted by: Noel Hadjimichael on October 16, 2006 12:53 PM

What a pathetic move. What next?
Silence the ABC altogether? Stop news programs? Stop analysis of news? Who investigates for the ordinary person in the street. The ones who work at the coal face and want to know what things really mean and how it will affect their pocket. The spin doctors tell us what they want us to hear, and it doesn't matter which side of politics you come from.

Posted by: SFD on October 16, 2006 12:58 PM

It is not ultimately in the interests of government to control the ABC.If government controls content or is perceived to manipulate content (through board appointments or otherwise) then government will not be credible in distancing itself from coverage when foreign governments or other individuals, groups and/or corporations complain about robust coverage. We need an independent and vigorous ABC for the sake of democracy in Australia ....particularly before elections!Isn't it interesting to reflect on where this latest "push" falls in our electoral cycle? We also need an ABC that is not so concerned about being accused that journalists begin to self censor themselves. If we wish to be an innovative, thoughtful, analytical people, we need exposure to a wide range of ideas. The ABC does a marvellous job of achieving this and I really value their contribution to our national life.

Mandy Tibbey, Sydney.

Posted by: mandy tibbey on October 16, 2006 12:59 PM

If the ABC is so biased to left wing politics, how does the Government explain the fact that the ABC regularly features luminaries such as Piers Doberman, Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson and Graeme Morris spraying their right-wing bile across the television screen on programs such as the Insiders and Lateline?

Now that he has completely changed the social landscpe through the Government's economic policies, Howard is attempting to change the way we think through control of the media and educational institutions in this country. He is absolutely drunk on power and has revealed himself for being the control freak that he is.

He has got to go.

Posted by: stevet on October 16, 2006 1:05 PM

How many of those who complain about ABC 'bias' actually listen to or watch anything much on it? The complaints seem to me nothing but precursors to censorship or preferably (for these people) its abolition, so that there will be no alternative to the (unbalanced) right wing chorus on the commercials.

Posted by: William C on October 16, 2006 1:05 PM

So the ABC is biased.
According to whom?
According to the new biased ABC board with their biased view that the ABC is now biased.
This biased board is now going to unbias the unbiased ABC that was unbised before the previous unbiased board was changed into now a biased board.
The new biased board will exert their biases and biased will against the unbiased journalists to change the unbiased ABC that they say is biased to something that they say will be unbiased but according to all unbiased viewers will be now biased.
What I being unbiased want to know is this?
Will the biased ABC board take the bias out of the bowls on the Saturday's bowls program as the bowlers can't bowl straight as there is bias in the biased bowls . . .but it ain't in our straight ABC.
You can't take bias out of anything.
To take bias out of something means to put someon'e else's bias into it. And that is what the biased Board are doing to the unbiased ABC. Putting their bias into the ABC to make it more biased than it is now when it is truely unbiased.
If the ABC was biased it would be a commercial station as nothing brings about bias more than the advertising dollar.

Posted by: Len on October 16, 2006 1:07 PM

I listen to 702 at work every day so have a pretty good handle on this issue over many years. Let me say - their daily line up has kept me sane and as far as talkback radio goes, they are the only game in town. Are they biased? Completely. In their own way, they are more left-wing than Fox News is right wing - but of course no-one can have this opinion without being shouted down as a 'Howard hugger' by most contributors here. Providing 'an alternative' as Richard Glover has called it on air, is not unbiased reporting. They're still the only game in town though.

Posted by: Dave Mc on October 16, 2006 1:09 PM

it will soon be impossible to find anything but right wing voices in the media...but then that is the whole idea anyway...

Posted by: Stephen on October 16, 2006 1:11 PM

The currant government frightens me more and more...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias -
Bias
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other senses of this word, see bias (disambiguation).
For Wikipedia's policy on avoiding bias, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a preference to one particular point of view or ideological perspective. However, one is generally only said to be biased if one's powers of judgment are influenced by the biases one holds, to the extent that one's views could not be taken as being neutral or objective, but instead as subjective. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or deny the truth of a claim, not on the basis of the strength of the arguments in support of the claim themselves, but because of the extent of the claim's correspondence with one's own preconceived ideas. This is called confirmation bias.

A systematic bias is a bias resulting from a flaw integral to the system within which the bias arises (for example, an incorrectly calibrated thermostat may consistently read ï¿½ that is 'be biased' ï¿½ several degrees hotter or colder than actual temperature). As a consequence, systematic bias commonly leads to systematic errors, as opposed to random errors, which tend to cancel one another out.

In practice, accusations of bias often result from unacknowledged favouritism on the part of a critic or judge, or indeed any person in a position requiring the careful and disinterested exercise of arbitration or assessment. Any tendency to favour a certain set of values naturally leads to an uneven dispensation of judgment. It may also be noted that, if a person were to take their own preexisting view as a priori balanced without acknowledging their own personal inclinations, any person or organization that disagrees with their views is likely to be viewed as biased regardless of that person or organization's actual efforts at balance. It may be observed that bias is, in a sense, reflexive, unacknowledged or unrecognised bias potentially leading to its apprehension (with or without good reason) in others.

This is particularly common in discussion of news media outlets such as CNN, Fox News Channel, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and so on. For example, Bill O'Reilly has made accusations of liberal bias against the staunchly conservative Globe and Mail; at the same time, critics of O'Reilly accuse him of a conservative bias. Control Room, a documentary film made in 2004, has examined the role of bias in the media, through an examination of the conflicting methods of reporting the events of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in Western and Arabian news networks. -

That says it all.ABC is not bias.Howard is a right wing conservative who has lost his generosity towards other view points.Mr.Howard unfortunately is NOT aging like a good bottle of wine. Improving in body and quality.

Posted by: lucy on October 16, 2006 1:11 PM

Yet another arrogant outrage on Howard's part. If the ABC is letting citizens down it is only because of the climate of fear he has tried to create there.

One simple, patriotic response;
TOTAL DISOBEDIENCE.

Posted by: M.Johnson on October 16, 2006 1:12 PM

Leave the Glass House alone!

Right-wingers have been complaining of left-wing bias and left-wingers have been complaining of right-wing bias in ABC. Both parties when in government are complaining about ABC bias. That, and the many reviews of ABC that have found nothing, show that ABC has been doing a pretty good job presenting a variety of views.
I am afraid that from now on we'll be getting bland and blander both on tv and radio not to mention the comedy shows.

Posted by: Kosta on October 16, 2006 1:13 PM

Why should we allow the ABC all the privileges of government funding of mediocrity without imposing some semblance of a demand for accountability.

I get tired of listening to impartial ABC interviewers whose political agenda is patently clear.

Roll on selling the thing off.

Posted by: Kevin on October 16, 2006 1:14 PM

Well, its a very slippery slope we now find ourselves on, isn't it? Where will it end I wonder - Stasiland? Government interference with the independence of the national broadcaster is a very scary thing indeed and completely inappropriate in a democracy. Just how far will the ABC have to bend in order to satisfy this Howard stacked board? Is the acceptable middle ground to be as far to the right as the rest of the body politic? Slowly, incrementally, this government is chipping away at our freedom of speech. Watch out anyone or any institution daring to provide a different perspective or offering criticism. Roll on the next election - or is that sentiment just too much left wing bias?

Posted by: Martin on October 16, 2006 1:25 PM

One of the reasons of bias is that it is cheaper and easier to criticise open societies, so more anti-American articles are featured.

Take for example the shooting of Tibetan refugees by Chinese border guards. The Chinese aren't going to be running a full, frank and open inquiry. Don't expect the Chinese Minister of the Interior to go on Lateline. The journalist will have to rely on a few seconds of footage and second hand comments available by anonomous sources not wishing to be identified.

However, if you want an expose on Guantanamo, the journalist can get their hands on military inquiries, Congressional inquiries, court transcripts, interviews, defence attorneys etc. So it is easier to satisfy an anti-Bush bent than to report on some poor dead Tibetans.

Case in point. When Foreign Correspondent covered human rights abuses in Uzbekistan did they interview the security forces, the insurgent Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or the Chinese or Russian Ambassadors who have oil interests in the country? No, but the US Embassy was prepared to be interviewed.

Posted by: Mardy on October 16, 2006 1:28 PM

P Adams, K O'Brien, Tony Jones, Q Dempster, T Delroy to name just a few.
Listen and observe and tell me how many of these vote LABOR?

Now list the presenters who vote non-Labor.

Posted by: Lawrie on October 16, 2006 1:29 PM

The ABC is biased in that it is the only television station that reports news and current affairs with impartiality (SBS aside).

All the other television stations are right-wing and biased towards the government.

This federal government is eroding democracy in many ways.

We deserve impartial reporting, and we deserve to hear different points of view.

This government has abolished many of the Senate Committees that ensure that fairer and non-extremist policies are achieved.

Now they just ram all sorts of shabby and unfair policies down the throats of the Australian people - many of which barely get a mention in the media due to bias.

Let's hope that the ABC can stay impartial so that the Australian people can at least receive an unbiased viewpoint from somewhere.

This sort of rot is going to continue and get worse if we don't do something about it.

Vote this Howard Government out of office at the next Federal election!

Posted by: Alastair on October 16, 2006 1:41 PM

Andrew G hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the only reason the ABC seems left-wing is because everything else is so right-wing.

Posted by: James on October 16, 2006 2:25 PM

That leaves the BBC as the only reputable source of information in the electronic media. And even they are being questioned.....

Posted by: Dennis on October 16, 2006 2:33 PM

Let's hope that the new ABC MD is not Joanathan Shier Mark2.
Having just heard the former on the radio, it sounds like he can only but foster enormous internal tensions. Will it come to "PM" staff being one day forced off ABC premises by Federal Poice for "unpatriotic" broadcasting? Labor may win the next election and board chaos will reign if that happens. And if you want to sample right wing broadcasting, try Michael Duffy's boring NR polemic on Mondays.

Posted by: Freedom on October 16, 2006 3:07 PM

Well, I think it has all been said above. Where are we to get the facts if the ABC is muzzled. Certainly not from the commercial TV and radio which has such an obvious right wing bias. The Howard government has stacked the ABC Board with conservative members and now will probably appoint a right wing ombudsman to make sure the ABC is unable to send out messages unpopular with the government.

Posted by: Joyce on October 16, 2006 3:36 PM

What matters is objective and accurate reporting. The ABC has some good programs, but overall is becoming more and more pathetic. ABC TV has very little to get excited about and the radio is dominated by chatter.
None of it could be called left wing or radical (whatever you want to call it)